When you start watching Quantum Chromodynamics videos after midnight, you know you've ended up in the "weird" part of TH-cam again. This quantum sh*t could be mind bending while having a joint.... which by the way I never do, nonetheless it's fascinating to imagine it. ;D
Wouldn't it be more correct, if you say electromagnetism has two charges (+ and -), that QCD has *six* charges (red-antired, green-antigreen, blue-antiblue)?
I guess that depends on if there are any remaining symmetries in the topology of k in your gallois representations for further dimensionality, or if you've already arrived at your del0 Z transform right? If it's zero their higher dim duality is fundamentally unitary at Csub0. Otherwise they are further decomposable, I think? Quantum harmonics are hard >.< Especially when you're working with relativistic chromogeometries with fundamentally moduloarithmetic properties.
Up Up, Left Right, Left Right, Down Down, (B)ehind in the (A)** might be even more fun Baa-Haa-Haa Yep it's after midnight, and the mind can sometimes play tricks on ya. ;D
This guy is amazing, in every single one of his videos. He can explain the most complex thing in a way a 4th grader could understand! I admire his genius!!!💡
@@Reppa57 lol, "the basics aren't difficult" "any video about quantum mecanic... seem totaly normal and understandable" OMG you're actually being serious. Amazing.
after watching this, I watched like 6 hours of worth of lectures that talk some/were about qcd. the Fermilab channel is definitely up there with all of the Brady Haran channels in my book. Can I just have all of Dr Don's shirts?
Thank you for clear explanation. By the way, I suppose that the term "Quantum Chromo-Dynamics" is like that of 3 linguistic fun. Namely, the 'Quantum' derives from Latin, 'Chromo' from Greek and 'Dynamics' is English in itself. Eventually the usage of these 3 sorts of languages is the same idea of 3 sorts of coloristic tiny particles in the mother bowl, I perceive. Very ingenious and reasonable usage. Yes, that's the same term as 3 characteristic languages vs particles. So be happy !
Whoo hoo, you are finally getting into QCD. I hope you can go more into depth with QCD at some point. In order to explain some of the points regarding asymptotic freedom, and how weird it is (you touched on it in this vid, but I would like it if you went more in depth, in some future video) creating mesons with the excess gluon energy so it is absolutely impossible to ever see a single quark. Likewise, that the Strong Nucelar Force is just a tiny bit of left over force leaking out of the quark-gluon interaction. It really blew my mind, and continues to do so, knowing we only exist because the gluon field is so strong that tiny bits that leak out of it are what holds nucleons together. That the tiny bit of excess energy leaking out of the system is so strong, that it remains the strongest force in the universe, even though it is basically just race amounts getting out due to confinement.
Thanks a lot. 👍 I do appreciate it! 3:06 In any event, unlike electric charge, which comes in two varieties: plus and minus, the strong charge comes in three varieties, named red, blue and green, anain, nothing to do with regular color. The particles that the colored quarks exchange are not photons, but rather particles called gluons. The photon is the particle of electromagnetic force and the gluon is the particle of the strong force. And, in analogy with QED or quantum ELECTROdynamics, we call this theory QCD for quantum CHROMOdynamics. Get it? Chromo? Color? Alright, sometimes I'm a little embarrassed by my tribe. For those of you who are fans of Feynman diagrams, we draw an exchanged photon as a wavy line, while a gluon is a corkscrew. And, just like all Feynman diagram, the Feynman diagram of two quarks exchanging a gluon orresponds to an equation that a sufficiently diligent stuend can solve. ... So how is QCD different from QED? Both involved exchanging force carrying particles between other particles carrying charge. The photon is massless. The gluon is massless. The photon has no electric charge. The gluon has no- oh wait a minute ... there's a difference. Gluons carry the strong charge. They have color. And that little different has a huge consequence. 4:285:42 But here's the tricy thing. When we break it, the energy that was stored in the string converts into matter and antimatter, specifically quarks and antiquarks. This process can go on for a while with more stretching and breaking and creating quarks and antiquark pairs. In the end, the particles all pairs up and what we get is a bunck of particles all travelling more or less in the same direction as the quark that got knocked out of the nucleon. Physicists call this blast of particles a jet. 6:09 And we see jets all the time. Here is a picture of a real even collision in the CMS detector, 6:12 one of the big LHC experiments. See those sprays of particles? Those are jets. So those are the big ideas of quantum chromodynamics. The strong force has a different charge and force carrying particle than quantum electrodynamics, but, in some respects, theay aren't so incredibly different. The big difference is the fact that the force carrying particles is itself charged with, as we have seen, dramatic consequences. The subatomic realm is really a pretty crazy place. 👍
The quarks that build up things like protons are held together by a small exchange of mass. They swap "charges" and that interaction keeps them close together. Nothing unimaginable going on like really fast moving particles that somehow magically generate a force...
Feels bad people have enough time to waste upon watching worthless videos and ignoring these amazing videos of reality of our world. Great work sir by the way. I'm so pleased to watch ur videos 😊😊😊
i'd like to hear more about the "string of colour charge" concept. i've also heard of them being referred to as 'flux tubes' & being explained as being like a column of true vacuum between the quarks. i've also heard of them being called 'gluons' & being explained as a particle interaction. i'd like to hear FermiLab's take on this, or someone's.
I don't understand at 4:45....I thought photons can experience wave interference and therefore DO interact with one another....but you say they don't. Mistake? Or am I missing something?
Wave interference is not interaction of two particles. You'll observe an interference pattern even when you repeatedly send a single photon towards a double-slit aperture, and track where the photons land on the detector. It's a function of probability where the photon lands - opening a second slit may increase the probability (constructive interference), or decrease it (destructive interference), depending on the position on the detector. Two photons generally don't interact with each other. They don't carry an electric charge or a color charge, and they aren't affected by weak force. They can interact (with low probability) indirectly, by a virtual electron-positron pair; macroscopically, this will manifest as two gamma rays deflecting each other. If the two photons have a sufficient amount of energy, they can also transform into a real electron-positron pair, in a reverse process of electron-positron annihilation.
3:22. They always "re-use" names. Plus and minus are "opposite" operators, if you wish, borrowed from Mathematics. They might have chosen "x" and "/" if they wanted. Someone here could've chosen "happy face" and "sad face". They did the same with quarks and gluons because the number of items from color theory matched the quantity they needed. 3 colors and 3 anti-colors from the additive and subtractive color models, respectively. I guess for high I. Q. people this does not constitute a problem, they know they will not "mix" concepts in their heads. But, not-so-gifted people will struggle for sure. After being a teacher and a private tutor for decades, I've realized this happens in all fields. I really do not know if they do it in purpose but I assure you this complicates the work of teachers like me who have to teach at several advanced levels such as high school AP, advanced college and post-degree courses. A machiavellistic person might perceive this as "filters" to deter "unwanted" fellows and keep them at distance. A more gullible individual might think they are just mnemonic devices. And, I want to think they are just "inner jokes".
Perhaps there is some "proprietary" humor to it, but I don't think the goal is obfuscation. Rather, I suspect that they simply weren't too concerned with such pedagogical aspects.
I think color was a pretty good choice for the strong force charge. I can't think of many other analogies where things come in threes. For two things, plus and minus works. We use north and south for magnets (which is an obvious choice considering the Earth's magnetic field). Male / Female, left / right, up / down. But not many things in threes...
it's not just the 3 colors. There are also 3 anti colors in QCD, and we use the complementary colors on the color wheel for those, or not ("anti-blue" is as good as "yellow"). The real kicker is that physical states we see are always colorless, and as such are made from either 3 colored quarks, or 3 anti-colored antiquarks, or 1 colored quark and 1 anti-colored anti quark....which is exactly how we interpret colors to make neutral shades/white....however, for QCD it stems from the representation theory of the Lie group, SU(3). It's a convenient coincidence.
That's it: the strong force charge has been called "color", because quarks can have three possible charges, "red", "green", and "blue", and combining the three yields a color-neutral state (or "white").
Hey, I have few questions on QCD. Question 1 of 4000: Is there reasons, why quarks have such high velocity/energy, and gluons possess such huge energy; and why that energy won’t emerge as weaker virtual particles or bozons before reaching gluon threshold? I.e. why this energy is reserved to quark/gluons only? Thanks for these vids!
I got the joke and as always, a great video. And I have a question. From a physics view, what is information? I don't understand what Susskind and Seth Loyd mean when they explain it.
I think I'm finally starting to get a feel for just what is meant by information after seeing a video or two about Einstein's much misunderstood theory of relativity, or at least much under understood. If we consider an impressionistic painting or whatever the name for paintings that are made entirely of individual dots, where every dot is uniform in color but when all of these dots which are uniform individually are placed in a particular order they form a picture that contains a great deal of information and references a great deal more information depending on how the individual observer relates to it as compared all of the information that they have acquired throughout their lives through experiences that make sense only in the manner in which they relate to each other. A point in space with nothing to relate it to has no definition, a second point provides a great deal of information about the first and itself and implies how to create an infinite amount of information. If a point were a sound that was made to remember that point by a mind with perfect memory then all of the points that make up all of the information contained in a picture of the Universe that references all of our experiences could be contained within a single sound. E = MC2, Energy is everything.
Two of the basic assumption of quantum mechanics are the given a quantum state you can predict it's time evolution based on the hamiltonian that describe the system, at any time in the future and that quantum processes are reversible which basically means that given an operator that brings you forward in time there is also an operator that can bring you back in time. So combining these two you get that quantum information cant be desdroyed. This information are things like the number of leptons in the universe, energy and spin.
A complete, well designed and stable world exists inside a nucleus. One question - will these properties remain the same at all values of gravity? E.g will these properties change closer to a blackhole or a neutron star?
Photons exchanged between particles would have to be at point-blank interferent intimate proximity; otherwise, how could their accurate marksmanship in emission ALWAYS be 100% accurate at targeting fundamental particles at relativistic speeds
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
Please stop your annoying annoying music. It is ABSOLUTELY awful. Besides that it is utterly unprofessional. How do you expect people to hear what is being said when there is also: * fans blowing * traffic passing * people talking Grow up and sort out your problem
The strong force if you account both anti-matter and matter it's kind of six different charges: Red, Green, Blue for matter ; and Cyan, Magenta, Yellow for anti-matter or somebody call them in turn anti-Red, anti-Green, anti-Blue.
When a receiver runs in one direction and the quarterback runs in another, throwing& catching the pass take a special kind of skill. The Feynman diagrams always show a completed a exchange. How often are the particle exchanges missed or incompletes? And are these just other Feynman diagrams, because I don't think they just line up for a second down and ten situation!
Is the sphere of a nucleon something like the 'soup' in a nucleus of cellbiology or is the sphere just a representation of of the length the different quarks can travel from each other?
What separates the color depiction of quark motion and antiquark motion? Are the two just mirrors of each other? It would seem to simple to think one would be a clockwise rotation of color charges and the other a counterclockwise rotation. I am not even sure that “rotation” makes sense at these scales as it seems it would be impossible to give precise locations…
Language language, how many dimension related languages do we align to fit the circumstances/appearance of a position under study? Repurposing "color" to another aspect of "threeness" is not a particularly unusual human habit in the face of natural circumstances, psudo-random occurrence of probability in possibility at vertices of coherence. The reason (so far) for the results of Particle physics research is the deliberately empirical methodology, ..it works, it follows the natural processes of heating phase-states and analyzing the results by illuminating atoms and imaging the "vapours", from stable quantum information states to more open field states(?).
@Fermilab Chromodynamics totally unnecessary if we accept that in 3D universe we need 3 axes of spin/charge to have stable quark cluster. 3axes of spin/charge which is why neutrinos have 3 flavors. Neutrino is charge un/couple spin cluster One for each axis. An$ the energy goes up because bonding occurs over a thinner and thinner path. Free neutrino mass is the spin working on vacuum energy. Lambda.
What if quarks were actually rotational inertia, spin dipole inertia, and spin tumbling frequency inertia, representing aggregate particles in translation, in onset reversal of direction, and in incipient reversal of direction within a wave guide envelope.
I didnt realize thar quarks use a different particle than the photon to transfer energy, is this the reason that there is not currently a unified theory?
@@jasexavier but we have equations for gravity already... So the equations just dont work together then? So gravity does not translate into the quantum scale, is it possible that this is because gravity acts in 4 dimensions but the quantum world actually only exists in 2 or 3 dimensions? Just a thought... What about relativity, does relativity ( time relativity) scale down to the quantum world?
@@patrickryckman3867 Correct, the equations of general relativity don't work at the quantum scale, and quantum mechanics can't describe gravity. Both systems work just fine in 4 dimensions. And time dilation/length contraction does appear to still work the same at the quantum scale.
You'd have a ton more dislikes if only the postmodernist ignoramuses cared to expand the horizons of their knowledge and watch a physics video. Only because you mentioned man + woman = human, and not man + woman + non-binary gender + unicorn = infinity.
Great stuff. But why so down on the color metaphor? I think it is excellent as a metaphor. Just as plus and minus cancel, like black and white, red green and blue "cancel" to make white! I suspect the metaphor runs even deeper since quarks are wave-like entities. I think it is an inspired choice of name, far superior to "top" "bottom" "strange" and "charmed" which are truly arbitrary.
Can someone explain this to me please. If protons and neutrons are filled with a sea of quarks, anti-auarks, gluons and such. How do the valence quarks come about? What makes a proton out of the googol of particles?
BTW: The electric charge comes in two polarities, but there is only one charge, the electric charge. If this was not true, then the color charge would come in 6 charges. A charge and its anti-charge are two polarities of the same charge, not two different charges.
Ah so Antimatter is a basic fundamental function of matter, maybe that's why the universe is not made of antimatter, it is used up (converted) in the interactions that creates the very matter we know
I think the conclusion you're drawing is wrong. If anything, this shows us that antimatter is so fundamental to the Universe that it really doesn't make much sense why we don't see it regularly on macroscopic scales.
Antimatter is a term used to desribe matter that was first detected behaving in the opposite (it was seen observed long ago in a cloud chamber doing the exact opposite of what matter was supposed to be doing...in this case you can imagine that particles were being fired out of a cannon, and instead of arcing to the left towards a magnet like we predicted, we saw particles taking the exact opposite pathway--arcing to the right, as well. If the degree to which a particle is deflected by a magnet is imagined as a function of it's mass, you could say that a particle (in this case, we'll use the electron) was seen with the same exact mass as an electron, but it had the opposite electric charge (which caused it to arc to the right instead of to the left like an electron should). Later, we surmised that matter and antimatter are created in pairs. Whenever an electron is created, an antimatter copy is created (the antimatter opposite of an electron is called a positron, and its used in the PET scan now famous in medicine) as well. But when we look around, we dont see a lot of antimatter earths, or antimatter apples, or chairs. Which is good, because antimatter and matter destroy one another upon contact. Nonetheless, we dont know why there is much more matter than antimatter in the universe. Because we know that antimatter and matter are created in pairs, we call this an assymetry. The universe around us isnt made from half matter, half antimatter, which we can detect. We dont know where this assymetry comes from, and its one of the largest scientific puzzles we'd like to solve.
Not really, Antimatter is EXACTLY the same as matter, except that they annihilate when the come together. You could just as easily use that same logic but replace with word matter with antimatter and vice versa and it would make just as much sense.
Antimatter isn't as much a fundamental function of matter as both matter and antimatter are a basic property of quantum fields. Basically all particles that have a "charge" (not neccessarily electric, it can also be color, lepton number, etc) also have a corresponding antiparticle with the opposite charge (if you know some basic complex analysis, antiparticle fields are the Hermitian conjugate (kind of similar to the complex conjugate) of particle fields). In other words there is no inherent difference between matter and antimatter (at least that we know of), we have just chosen to call the one our immediate reality is made out of for matter.
***** You're right, I had baryon number violation in mind (which hasn't been observed but would help explain the matter-antimatter asymmerty if it can be shown to have happened before) and completely forgot about CP violation, which has actually been observed. I still stand by the fact that matter and antimatter are properties of quantum fields though, as opposed to antimatter being a property of matter (with the term property admittedly being used a bit loose here).
Gee how big are the coils. Bet you all wondered what would happen if the photon took on the characteristics of a gluon. So what happened? Just kidding. Anything?
Does nucleus at end keeps its quark? What happens, if hit are all quarks? Does whole nucleus is moved or stretched? Or strong force tries to keep all of them in its place by breaking and creating multiple nucleuses.
Matter can be explained as energy with points and those points at times have reference. Like a bathroom surrounded by reflecting wall tiles or a room surrounded by mirrors top to bottom.
So would it be safe to assume that the Strong Forces have Field associated with them just like ElectroMagnetism ?? Does it behave in a similar way if so ? Ie a 3D vector field ?
So the gluon is the force carrying particle for the strong force, but it also *has* a strong force charge of its own, so gluons can interact with each other. But, they interact via the strong force, which means they interact by exchanging gluons. Which will interact with the original gluons by exchanging gluons. And so on and so on. Is this why the strong force is so strong? Because the force carrying particles can generate more force carrying particles? Is it also why it has almost no range? After all, how is a gluon supposed to escape that hot mess of interaction to explore the wider universe like the uninteractive photon can?
My thought experiments and the emerging physical geometry of the standard model particles is causing me to think that the strong force is a mainly magnetic 🧲 coupling. It may be caused by the generation III dipole in the energy core of a fermion. Quark colors are determined by which dipole in the personality couples with the generation III dipole in the energy core. So this must then play a big role in the neutron and proton which have three energy cores and therefore three generation III dipoles that each generate a spinning magnetic field. See jmarkmorris.com
***** Then a quark firing a gluon should multiply into a blob of gluons that all firing at and attract each other......Oh I get it! That's why strong force is like a rubber band! Because you increase the distance between two quarks, then there's more space in between to pop more gluons thus more attract force, right?
I think gluons interact the same as electrons, like waves hitting waves in an ocean. I don't believe that there is any such thing as a particle. We interpret the wave peaks as being particles but what we observe as a particle is really the position of the wave peaks. All information is contained within a vibration/wave/sound that can be heard as a single sound but can be broken down infinitely as individual notes that form a harmony. The breaking down for of sound is what I think is referred to as a Fourier transform. I think the universe would be much easier to contemplate when it's looked at as an exchange of information carried by the waves of many oceans within a single ocean. The energy jets shown in the computer enhanced depiction of some kind of photograph that the powers that be apparently think is too misleading or some such for us to view in it's original( idk just saying be skeptical of "widely accepted" science that is passed along as cartoon pictures), but anyway, that cartoon picture looks a lot like what we could imagine an asteroid might look like if it hit the ocean or the land but all of these depictions cartoon or imaginary are just our interpretations of the information that we received in waves. Particles only exist in our imagination and are based on the information that we receive from the Universe of which we are a part.
Color charge is the same as QED charge only at a much shorter distance and quantised as you say in 9 amounts, hence physicists aren't as idiosyncratic as you may think. IMO they are all negative but the gluon has minute mass and negative charge that is not apparent at those short distances and high velocities.
Words are supposed to mean things. Not just be random vocalizations. If the particle has nothing to do a color then they should not be named colors. Start giving it a different term and promote that term.
When the quark is snapped out a new pair forms but I think energy of the nucleon must decrease so is their a way the nucleon stabilizes or we can keep making quark pair and eventually the nucleon will fall apart due to insufficient energy.
No; to move a quark away from the rest of the particle, you need to expend energy (as in a high energy particle collision - the kinetic energy of the particles involved in the collision can go to energy of the quark states); and eventually, that energy can be released by the creation of a quark/anti-quark pair. To compare: when you move an object up (away from Earth) in Earth's gravity, you also need to expend energy, which goes to potential energy of the object; and when you drop it, it will move back down (to a state with less potential energy), the energy going to the object's kinetic energy and, eventually (after hitting the ground), to heat. You wouldn't claim that the Earth would run out of energy in accelerating the object and that it would remain hanging in midair. Would you?
If quarks move around at nearly the speed of light, does that mean that time is slowed down for them? What does that imply about the universe as a whole?
The strong force act between quarks in single proton or neutron , is it also acting between different protons or between different quarks in different protons ?
What I would really like to know is, can you have a field / particle that is not coupled to any other field? Like a Neutrino that is not even coupled to the weak force. Could Dark Matter be something like this.
The problem with such a particle is that since it doesn't couple to any other field it doesn't interact with anything. In other words there would be NO difference whatsoever between a universe containing such particles and one that doesn't. As for Dark Matter it couldn't be one of those since we already know it couples to the graviton field (actually not entirely true since we've yet to actually discover the graviton, but it still has to interact gravitationally in some way).
So a particle that couples to nothing but gravity? That is certainly a candidate for Dark Matter, but it would kind of suck if it was true since gravitational interaction is so extremely weak those particles would be almost impossible to examine individually :P
How is one electron aware of another electron - so that it shoots a photon at it. Do the electrons create some kind of perturbation or ripple effect in the field that communicates it's presence to other electrons? Also what is the purpose of the photon "exchange"? So that the electrons don't bump into each other other or is it just that they both have a negative charge and so repel one another?
Does the creation of antimatter-matter pairs in the "jet" process result in the immediate complete annihilation of the pairs, all converting to photons? Or is some matter left over in the process?
And what does the color charge do, I mean if I have a a bunch of protons and in these protons the Quarks have all sorts of color charges, what does that do?
color charges attract or repel other colors; however, the attractive/repulsive field carries color and anti color between charges. The proton itself is color neutral, but close up there is some residual force, so it can bind into a nucleus. The actual equations describing this are unsolvable, but they sure are pretty.
Thanks for sharing this information.
YAY!!
When you start watching Quantum Chromodynamics videos after midnight, you know you've ended up in the "weird" part of TH-cam again. This quantum sh*t could be mind bending while having a joint.... which by the way I never do, nonetheless it's fascinating to imagine it. ;D
Heeeeeeeeey it's my hero!!! What a treat!
Thank you for sharing your visualization
Eu Genius
always impressive. thank you, fermilab. 감사합니다.
Wouldn't it be more correct, if you say electromagnetism has two charges (+ and -), that QCD has *six* charges (red-antired, green-antigreen, blue-antiblue)?
Hey yeah. I never thought of it like that.
I guess that depends on if there are any remaining symmetries in the topology of k in your gallois representations for further dimensionality, or if you've already arrived at your del0 Z transform right? If it's zero their higher dim duality is fundamentally unitary at Csub0. Otherwise they are further decomposable, I think? Quantum harmonics are hard >.< Especially when you're working with relativistic chromogeometries with fundamentally moduloarithmetic properties.
By the same logic, wouldn't there also be 4 electric charges? Positive, negative, antipositive, and antinegative?
Don't f*** me up man, my brain is about to melt with just three of them
Or electromagnetism has one couple of charges and strong interaction has 3 couple of charges
How do the quarks avoid Quantum Tunneling out of reach for the Strong Force?
thanks for making this
I thought photons could interact with each other since the LHC collides photons or am I wrong? Or is this just extremly rare in nature?
No, the LHC collides hadrons.
Up and down, from top to bottom, I think you're charming and strange.
What a quarky little comment!!
kinda quarky tho
I’m just glad there’s no truth and beauty....
Up Up, Left Right, Left Right, Down Down, (B)ehind in the (A)** might be even more fun Baa-Haa-Haa
Yep it's after midnight, and the mind can sometimes play tricks on ya. ;D
He seems really pleased with himself in the thumbnail.
This guy is amazing, in every single one of his videos. He can explain the most complex thing in a way a 4th grader could understand! I admire his genius!!!💡
@David Roberts Shhhh
He's using the word Quantum and that makes him a "genius" ?
Just means you care more about sounding smart than being smart.
@@Reppa57 lol, "the basics aren't difficult"
"any video about quantum mecanic... seem totaly normal and understandable"
OMG you're actually being serious.
Amazing.
@@Reppa57 "the basics arent difficult" said no physics major ever lmao
@@Freakazoid12345 i think he is using the word quantum because he is talking about quantum mechanics
not because he wants to sound smart
One of the most masterful physics professors on planet Earth!! You truly set the bar for all other professors!!!
I propose to have a playlist strictly dedicated to Dr. Don on this channel.
after watching this, I watched like 6 hours of worth of lectures that talk some/were about qcd. the Fermilab channel is definitely up there with all of the Brady Haran channels in my book. Can I just have all of Dr Don's shirts?
okay, I'm gonna ask the million dollar question on everyone's mind.
WHERE DOES DR. LINCOLM GET HIS AWESOME SHIRTS??????
James
I want the answers ASAP🤣🤣🙏
great video as always!
Thank you for clear explanation. By the way, I suppose that the term "Quantum Chromo-Dynamics" is like that of 3 linguistic fun. Namely, the 'Quantum' derives from Latin, 'Chromo' from Greek and 'Dynamics' is English in itself. Eventually the usage of these 3 sorts of languages is the same idea of 3 sorts of coloristic tiny particles in the mother bowl, I perceive. Very ingenious and reasonable usage. Yes, that's the same term as 3 characteristic languages vs particles. So be happy !
But "dynamic" is Greek origin word.
@@kirill112k2 exactly
Whoo hoo, you are finally getting into QCD.
I hope you can go more into depth with QCD at some point. In order to explain some of the points regarding asymptotic freedom, and how weird it is (you touched on it in this vid, but I would like it if you went more in depth, in some future video) creating mesons with the excess gluon energy so it is absolutely impossible to ever see a single quark.
Likewise, that the Strong Nucelar Force is just a tiny bit of left over force leaking out of the quark-gluon interaction. It really blew my mind, and continues to do so, knowing we only exist because the gluon field is so strong that tiny bits that leak out of it are what holds nucleons together. That the tiny bit of excess energy leaking out of the system is so strong, that it remains the strongest force in the universe, even though it is basically just race amounts getting out due to confinement.
Came here after watching Young Sheldon....half a minute and I don't want to be Sheldon anymore
Me too😂
This video is really awesome! Keep posting more in depth stuff like this.
Thanks a lot. 👍 I do appreciate it! 3:06 In any event, unlike electric charge, which comes in two varieties: plus and minus, the strong charge comes in three varieties, named red, blue and green, anain, nothing to do with regular color. The particles that the colored quarks exchange are not photons, but rather particles called gluons. The photon is the particle of electromagnetic force and the gluon is the particle of the strong force. And, in analogy with QED or quantum ELECTROdynamics, we call this theory QCD for quantum CHROMOdynamics. Get it? Chromo? Color? Alright, sometimes I'm a little embarrassed by my tribe. For those of you who are fans of Feynman diagrams, we draw an exchanged photon as a wavy line, while a gluon is a corkscrew. And, just like all Feynman diagram, the Feynman diagram of two quarks exchanging a gluon orresponds to an equation that a sufficiently diligent stuend can solve. ... So how is QCD different from QED? Both involved exchanging force carrying particles between other particles carrying charge. The photon is massless. The gluon is massless. The photon has no electric charge. The gluon has no- oh wait a minute ... there's a difference. Gluons carry the strong charge. They have color. And that little different has a huge consequence. 4:28 5:42 But here's the tricy thing. When we break it, the energy that was stored in the string converts into matter and antimatter, specifically quarks and antiquarks. This process can go on for a while with more stretching and breaking and creating quarks and antiquark pairs. In the end, the particles all pairs up and what we get is a bunck of particles all travelling more or less in the same direction as the quark that got knocked out of the nucleon. Physicists call this blast of particles a jet. 6:09 And we see jets all the time. Here is a picture of a real even collision in the CMS detector, 6:12 one of the big LHC experiments. See those sprays of particles? Those are jets. So those are the big ideas of quantum chromodynamics. The strong force has a different charge and force carrying particle than quantum electrodynamics, but, in some respects, theay aren't so incredibly different. The big difference is the fact that the force carrying particles is itself charged with, as we have seen, dramatic consequences. The subatomic realm is really a pretty crazy place. 👍
The quarks that build up things like protons are held together by a small exchange of mass. They swap "charges" and that interaction keeps them close together. Nothing unimaginable going on like really fast moving particles that somehow magically generate a force...
We all know that the strongest force in the Universe is love.
Interstellar in a nutshell.
😂😂😂
If you ask me it’s Stella. 🤪
Are we returning to the "hippie" love, flowers, cannabis and so forth at the universities' campus again?
Quite boring, isn't it?
"Love and Hate - What a beautiful combination" (those who love Erasure would know ;)
Really enjoying these videos. Fermilab has done a fantastic job with them. Thank you!
Feels bad people have enough time to waste upon watching worthless videos and ignoring these amazing videos of reality of our world. Great work sir by the way. I'm so pleased to watch ur videos 😊😊😊
You do an outstanding job of bringing complex physics to the lay person and I love watching your channel.
i'd like to hear more about the "string of colour charge" concept.
i've also heard of them being referred to as 'flux tubes' & being explained as being like a column of true vacuum between the quarks.
i've also heard of them being called 'gluons' & being explained as a particle interaction.
i'd like to hear FermiLab's take on this, or someone's.
I don't understand at 4:45....I thought photons can experience wave interference and therefore DO interact with one another....but you say they don't. Mistake? Or am I missing something?
Wave interference is not interaction of two particles. You'll observe an interference pattern even when you repeatedly send a single photon towards a double-slit aperture, and track where the photons land on the detector. It's a function of probability where the photon lands - opening a second slit may increase the probability (constructive interference), or decrease it (destructive interference), depending on the position on the detector.
Two photons generally don't interact with each other. They don't carry an electric charge or a color charge, and they aren't affected by weak force. They can interact (with low probability) indirectly, by a virtual electron-positron pair; macroscopically, this will manifest as two gamma rays deflecting each other. If the two photons have a sufficient amount of energy, they can also transform into a real electron-positron pair, in a reverse process of electron-positron annihilation.
Thanks Dr. Don for explaining the QED … u can make physics a piece of cake to any layman…
These are the real infinity stones
I ❤💚💙 science
The best videos on physics on youtube
Thank you so much! you deserve a billion followers
3:22. They always "re-use" names. Plus and minus are "opposite" operators, if you wish, borrowed from Mathematics. They might have chosen "x" and "/" if they wanted. Someone here could've chosen "happy face" and "sad face". They did the same with quarks and gluons because the number of items from color theory matched the quantity they needed. 3 colors and 3 anti-colors from the additive and subtractive color models, respectively. I guess for high I. Q. people this does not constitute a problem, they know they will not "mix" concepts in their heads. But, not-so-gifted people will struggle for sure. After being a teacher and a private tutor for decades, I've realized this happens in all fields. I really do not know if they do it in purpose but I assure you this complicates the work of teachers like me who have to teach at several advanced levels such as high school AP, advanced college and post-degree courses. A machiavellistic person might perceive this as "filters" to deter "unwanted" fellows and keep them at distance. A more gullible individual might think they are just mnemonic devices. And, I want to think they are just "inner jokes".
"Literalization" of metaphors happens a lot. I think that's just a risk of using one.
Perhaps there is some "proprietary" humor to it, but I don't think the goal is obfuscation. Rather, I suspect that they simply weren't too concerned with such pedagogical aspects.
Bashirian Throughway
One of the best videos about physics I have found on TH-cam. Thanks and congratulations.
Nucleon. Wow what is it again? Nucleons particle? Why so many names.
Nucleons are particles contained in the atomic nucleus - protons and neutrons.
No concept is difficult when Doc Lincoln explains it, and you shouldn’t be afraid, when he’s relaxed. You relax, and eat it.
Yea
I think color was a pretty good choice for the strong force charge. I can't think of many other analogies where things come in threes. For two things, plus and minus works. We use north and south for magnets (which is an obvious choice considering the Earth's magnetic field). Male / Female, left / right, up / down. But not many things in threes...
it's not just the 3 colors. There are also 3 anti colors in QCD, and we use the complementary colors on the color wheel for those, or not ("anti-blue" is as good as "yellow"). The real kicker is that physical states we see are always colorless, and as such are made from either 3 colored quarks, or 3 anti-colored antiquarks, or 1 colored quark and 1 anti-colored anti quark....which is exactly how we interpret colors to make neutral shades/white....however, for QCD it stems from the representation theory of the Lie group, SU(3). It's a convenient coincidence.
Electricity: positive, negative, ground/neutral
Orientation: left, right, center
Direction: under, over, through
It's arbitrary.
could it be that they just used colors as the charges for quarks because there are three different charges?
That's it: the strong force charge has been called "color", because quarks can have three possible charges, "red", "green", and "blue", and combining the three yields a color-neutral state (or "white").
Hey, I have few questions on QCD.
Question 1 of 4000:
Is there reasons, why quarks have such high velocity/energy, and gluons possess such huge energy; and why that energy won’t emerge as weaker virtual particles or bozons before reaching gluon threshold?
I.e. why this energy is reserved to quark/gluons only?
Thanks for these vids!
I think it does emerge as virtual particles, this video is just simplified for an easier explanation
Can u send 2D or 3D image of quantum field plz?(example:electron field,up-quark field)
I got the joke and as always, a great video. And I have a question. From a physics view, what is information? I don't understand what Susskind and Seth Loyd mean when they explain it.
I think I'm finally starting to get a feel for just what is meant by information after seeing a video or two about Einstein's much misunderstood theory of relativity, or at least much under understood. If we consider an impressionistic painting or whatever the name for paintings that are made entirely of individual dots, where every dot is uniform in color but when all of these dots which are uniform individually are placed in a particular order they form a picture that contains a great deal of information and references a great deal more information depending on how the individual observer relates to it as compared all of the information that they have acquired throughout their lives through experiences that make sense only in the manner in which they relate to each other. A point in space with nothing to relate it to has no definition, a second point provides a great deal of information about the first and itself and implies how to create an infinite amount of information. If a point were a sound that was made to remember that point by a mind with perfect memory then all of the points that make up all of the information contained in a picture of the Universe that references all of our experiences could be contained within a single sound. E = MC2, Energy is everything.
Information is anything that isn't nothing
I think "plumber" Susskind gives the most down to earth explanation of black holes akin of going down the drain. (the joke is on "plumber" ;)
Two of the basic assumption of quantum mechanics are the given a quantum state you can predict it's time evolution based on the hamiltonian that describe the system, at any time in the future and that quantum processes are reversible which basically means that given an operator that brings you forward in time there is also an operator that can bring you back in time.
So combining these two you get that quantum information cant be desdroyed. This information are things like the number of leptons in the universe, energy and spin.
A complete, well designed and stable world exists inside a nucleus.
One question - will these properties remain the same at all values of gravity? E.g will these properties change closer to a blackhole or a neutron star?
Photons exchanged between particles would have to be at point-blank interferent intimate proximity; otherwise, how could their accurate marksmanship in emission ALWAYS be 100% accurate at targeting fundamental particles at relativistic speeds
THANKS for your time. Your videos are awesome!
It's like you guessed that I was puzzled about the difference between QED and QCD. Now I know
this was a REALLY good explanation. thank you
Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and that of all your colleagues
I had a choice between PBS Spacetime and Fermilab to hear this coverage. I just love how this guy speaks
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together.
------------------------
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics.
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
QCD is the study of strong force interactions which happen via gluons. The quarks and gluons both carry colour charge unlike QED.
I love this man.
Please stop your annoying annoying music. It is ABSOLUTELY awful. Besides that it is utterly unprofessional. How do you expect people to hear what is being said when there is also:
* fans blowing
* traffic passing
* people talking
Grow up and sort out your problem
Love this, very straightforward and Dr.Don's jokes are really quircky.
Excellent explanation ☺️
The strong force if you account both anti-matter and matter it's kind of six different charges: Red, Green, Blue for matter ; and Cyan, Magenta, Yellow for anti-matter or somebody call them in turn anti-Red, anti-Green, anti-Blue.
You are a genius
When a receiver runs in one direction and the quarterback runs in another, throwing& catching the pass take a special kind of skill. The Feynman diagrams always show a completed a exchange. How often are the particle exchanges missed or incompletes? And are these just other Feynman diagrams, because I don't think they just line up for a second down and ten situation!
Is the sphere of a nucleon something like the 'soup' in a nucleus of cellbiology or is the sphere just a representation of of the length the different quarks can travel from each other?
What separates the color depiction of quark motion and antiquark motion? Are the two just mirrors of each other?
It would seem to simple to think one would be a clockwise rotation of color charges and the other a counterclockwise rotation.
I am not even sure that “rotation” makes sense at these scales as it seems it would be impossible to give precise locations…
Language language, how many dimension related languages do we align to fit the circumstances/appearance of a position under study? Repurposing "color" to another aspect of "threeness" is not a particularly unusual human habit in the face of natural circumstances, psudo-random occurrence of probability in possibility at vertices of coherence. The reason (so far) for the results of Particle physics research is the deliberately empirical methodology, ..it works, it follows the natural processes of heating phase-states and analyzing the results by illuminating atoms and imaging the "vapours", from stable quantum information states to more open field states(?).
@Fermilab Chromodynamics totally unnecessary if we accept that in 3D universe we need 3 axes of spin/charge to have stable quark cluster. 3axes of spin/charge which is why neutrinos have 3 flavors. Neutrino is charge un/couple spin cluster One for each axis. An$ the energy goes up because bonding occurs over a thinner and thinner path.
Free neutrino mass is the spin working on vacuum energy. Lambda.
What if quarks were actually rotational inertia, spin dipole inertia, and spin tumbling frequency inertia, representing aggregate particles in translation, in onset reversal of direction, and in incipient reversal of direction within a wave guide envelope.
I didnt realize thar quarks use a different particle than the photon to transfer energy, is this the reason that there is not currently a unified theory?
No, that would be gravity. Nuclear forces and electromagnetic forces play nicely together, but we don't understand how gravity fits.
@@jasexavier but we have equations for gravity already... So the equations just dont work together then? So gravity does not translate into the quantum scale, is it possible that this is because gravity acts in 4 dimensions but the quantum world actually only exists in 2 or 3 dimensions? Just a thought...
What about relativity, does relativity ( time relativity) scale down to the quantum world?
@@patrickryckman3867 Correct, the equations of general relativity don't work at the quantum scale, and quantum mechanics can't describe gravity. Both systems work just fine in 4 dimensions. And time dilation/length contraction does appear to still work the same at the quantum scale.
You'd have a ton more dislikes if only the postmodernist ignoramuses cared to expand the horizons of their knowledge and watch a physics video.
Only because you mentioned man + woman = human, and not man + woman + non-binary gender + unicorn = infinity.
Great stuff. But why so down on the color metaphor? I think it is excellent as a metaphor. Just as plus and minus cancel, like black and white, red green and blue "cancel" to make white! I suspect the metaphor runs even deeper since quarks are wave-like entities. I think it is an inspired choice of name, far superior to "top" "bottom" "strange" and "charmed" which are truly arbitrary.
Can someone explain this to me please. If protons and neutrons are filled with a sea of quarks, anti-auarks, gluons and such. How do the valence quarks come about? What makes a proton out of the googol of particles?
BTW: The electric charge comes in two polarities, but there is only one charge, the electric charge. If this was not true, then the color charge would come in 6 charges. A charge and its anti-charge are two polarities of the same charge, not two different charges.
Thank you sir
Real question... Do you know what all that gobbledygook on the blackboard behind you means..??
Ah so Antimatter is a basic fundamental function of matter, maybe that's why the universe is not made of antimatter, it is used up (converted) in the interactions that creates the very matter we know
I think the conclusion you're drawing is wrong. If anything, this shows us that antimatter is so fundamental to the Universe that it really doesn't make much sense why we don't see it regularly on macroscopic scales.
Antimatter is a term used to desribe matter that was first detected behaving in the opposite (it was seen observed long ago in a cloud chamber doing the exact opposite of what matter was supposed to be doing...in this case you can imagine that particles were being fired out of a cannon, and instead of arcing to the left towards a magnet like we predicted, we saw particles taking the exact opposite pathway--arcing to the right, as well. If the degree to which a particle is deflected by a magnet is imagined as a function of it's mass, you could say that a particle (in this case, we'll use the electron) was seen with the same exact mass as an electron, but it had the opposite electric charge (which caused it to arc to the right instead of to the left like an electron should).
Later, we surmised that matter and antimatter are created in pairs. Whenever an electron is created, an antimatter copy is created (the antimatter opposite of an electron is called a positron, and its used in the PET scan now famous in medicine) as well. But when we look around, we dont see a lot of antimatter earths, or antimatter apples, or chairs. Which is good, because antimatter and matter destroy one another upon contact.
Nonetheless, we dont know why there is much more matter than antimatter in the universe. Because we know that antimatter and matter are created in pairs, we call this an assymetry. The universe around us isnt made from half matter, half antimatter, which we can detect. We dont know where this assymetry comes from, and its one of the largest scientific puzzles we'd like to solve.
Not really, Antimatter is EXACTLY the same as matter, except that they annihilate when the come together. You could just as easily use that same logic but replace with word matter with antimatter and vice versa and it would make just as much sense.
Antimatter isn't as much a fundamental function of matter as both matter and antimatter are a basic property of quantum fields. Basically all particles that have a "charge" (not neccessarily electric, it can also be color, lepton number, etc) also have a corresponding antiparticle with the opposite charge (if you know some basic complex analysis, antiparticle fields are the Hermitian conjugate (kind of similar to the complex conjugate) of particle fields). In other words there is no inherent difference between matter and antimatter (at least that we know of), we have just chosen to call the one our immediate reality is made out of for matter.
*****
You're right, I had baryon number violation in mind (which hasn't been observed but would help explain the matter-antimatter asymmerty if it can be shown to have happened before) and completely forgot about CP violation, which has actually been observed. I still stand by the fact that matter and antimatter are properties of quantum fields though, as opposed to antimatter being a property of matter (with the term property admittedly being used a bit loose here).
The deepest and most fundamental rules of the universe... mom is always right and don't follow the rabbit. xD
Gee how big are the coils. Bet you all wondered what would happen if the photon took on the characteristics of a gluon. So what happened? Just kidding. Anything?
Does nucleus at end keeps its quark? What happens, if hit are all quarks? Does whole nucleus is moved or stretched? Or strong force tries to keep all of them in its place by breaking and creating multiple nucleuses.
Matter can be explained as energy with points and those points at times have reference. Like a bathroom surrounded by reflecting wall tiles or a room surrounded by mirrors top to bottom.
So would it be safe to assume that the Strong Forces have Field associated with them just like ElectroMagnetism ?? Does it behave in a similar way if so ? Ie a 3D vector field ?
So the gluon is the force carrying particle for the strong force, but it also *has* a strong force charge of its own, so gluons can interact with each other. But, they interact via the strong force, which means they interact by exchanging gluons. Which will interact with the original gluons by exchanging gluons. And so on and so on. Is this why the strong force is so strong? Because the force carrying particles can generate more force carrying particles? Is it also why it has almost no range? After all, how is a gluon supposed to escape that hot mess of interaction to explore the wider universe like the uninteractive photon can?
My thought experiments and the emerging physical geometry of the standard model particles is causing me to think that the strong force is a mainly magnetic 🧲 coupling. It may be caused by the generation III dipole in the energy core of a fermion. Quark colors are determined by which dipole in the personality couples with the generation III dipole in the energy core. So this must then play a big role in the neutron and proton which have three energy cores and therefore three generation III dipoles that each generate a spinning magnetic field. See jmarkmorris.com
What if the color force "charge" is a frequency of "inertial mass" or of magnetic dipole rotation or spin?
How do we observe that strong force comes in 3 different colors?
How do gluons act with each others? Shooting gluons at each others? But the gluon they shoot out would shoot more gluons and...... I don't know.
***** Then a quark firing a gluon should multiply into a blob of gluons that all firing at and attract each other......Oh I get it! That's why strong force is like a rubber band! Because you increase the distance between two quarks, then there's more space in between to pop more gluons thus more attract force, right?
I think gluons interact the same as electrons, like waves hitting waves in an ocean. I don't believe that there is any such thing as a particle. We interpret the wave peaks as being particles but what we observe as a particle is really the position of the wave peaks. All information is contained within a vibration/wave/sound that can be heard as a single sound but can be broken down infinitely as individual notes that form a harmony. The breaking down for of sound is what I think is referred to as a Fourier transform. I think the universe would be much easier to contemplate when it's looked at as an exchange of information carried by the waves of many oceans within a single ocean. The energy jets shown in the computer enhanced depiction of some kind of photograph that the powers that be apparently think is too misleading or some such for us to view in it's original( idk just saying be skeptical of "widely accepted" science that is passed along as cartoon pictures), but anyway, that cartoon picture looks a lot like what we could imagine an asteroid might look like if it hit the ocean or the land but all of these depictions cartoon or imaginary are just our interpretations of the information that we received in waves. Particles only exist in our imagination and are based on the information that we receive from the Universe of which we are a part.
@@imaginaryuniverse632
But even water itself can ultimately be broken down to particles, namely water molecules in this case.
Attrition will ultimately attenuate their energy so that no chain reaction can occur. ;D
Color charge is the same as QED charge only at a much shorter distance and quantised as you say in 9 amounts, hence physicists aren't as idiosyncratic as you may think. IMO they are all negative but the gluon has minute mass and negative charge that is not apparent at those short distances and high velocities.
to heck with trying to figure things out. I am in looove! How incredibly cute this guy is!
I know basically nothing of physics but kinda understood the video... he is Great!
Words are supposed to mean things. Not just be random vocalizations.
If the particle has nothing to do a color then they should not be named colors. Start giving it a different term and promote that term.
When the quark is snapped out a new pair forms but I think energy of the nucleon must decrease so is their a way the nucleon stabilizes or we can keep making quark pair and eventually the nucleon will fall apart due to insufficient energy.
No; to move a quark away from the rest of the particle, you need to expend energy (as in a high energy particle collision - the kinetic energy of the particles involved in the collision can go to energy of the quark states); and eventually, that energy can be released by the creation of a quark/anti-quark pair.
To compare: when you move an object up (away from Earth) in Earth's gravity, you also need to expend energy, which goes to potential energy of the object; and when you drop it, it will move back down (to a state with less potential energy), the energy going to the object's kinetic energy and, eventually (after hitting the ground), to heat. You wouldn't claim that the Earth would run out of energy in accelerating the object and that it would remain hanging in midair. Would you?
Excellent!!! Salutations for doing my education.
If quarks move around at nearly the speed of light, does that mean that time is slowed down for them? What does that imply about the universe as a whole?
I LOVE YOU! Thank you for explaining this stuff in simple terms!
I love your videos so much! Thank you.
Kind of discouraging telling the kids not to try this at home.I love your videos man but that shit was whack!
The strong force act between quarks in single proton or neutron , is it also acting between different protons or between different quarks in different protons ?
The word is "and", not "aa-yand". Please speak English or go to an elocutionist
an extremely stupid question but why and what are the nucleon "shell" formed?
What I would really like to know is, can you have a field / particle that is not coupled to any other field? Like a Neutrino that is not even coupled to the weak force.
Could Dark Matter be something like this.
The problem with such a particle is that since it doesn't couple to any other field it doesn't interact with anything. In other words there would be NO difference whatsoever between a universe containing such particles and one that doesn't.
As for Dark Matter it couldn't be one of those since we already know it couples to the graviton field (actually not entirely true since we've yet to actually discover the graviton, but it still has to interact gravitationally in some way).
Could you have none but still coupling to Gravity?
What do you mean with none? If it's couplling to gravity it's still coupling to something :/
Ok, it should of read, Only Gravity.
So a particle that couples to nothing but gravity? That is certainly a candidate for Dark Matter, but it would kind of suck if it was true since gravitational interaction is so extremely weak those particles would be almost impossible to examine individually :P
In british english is color spelt colour like the colour of light or do you continue to use the american spelling in the context of chromodynamics?
How is one electron aware of another electron - so that it shoots a photon at it. Do the electrons create some kind of perturbation or ripple effect in the field that communicates it's presence to other electrons? Also what is the purpose of the photon "exchange"? So that the electrons don't bump into each other other or is it just that they both have a negative charge and so repel one another?
Kids, do try it at home. The worst that can happen is you understand how difficult they can be.
Would an anti red quark mean its a quark with a mixture of blue and green quark or is just thinking these on the basis of colour not correct
Does the creation of antimatter-matter pairs in the "jet" process result in the immediate complete annihilation of the pairs, all converting to photons? Or is some matter left over in the process?
And what does the color charge do, I mean if I have a a bunch of protons and in these protons the Quarks have all sorts of color charges, what does that do?
color charges attract or repel other colors; however, the attractive/repulsive field carries color and anti color between charges. The proton itself is color neutral, but close up there is some residual force, so it can bind into a nucleus. The actual equations describing this are unsolvable, but they sure are pretty.
The equation doesn't seem too difficult to me. It must be like ax² + bx + c = 0 it's quite easy